Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40776601›Full record

ArticleJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale

Readability, Reliability, and Quality Analysis of Internet-Based Patient Education Materials and Large Language Models on Meniere's Disease.

Salahaldin Alamleh, Dorsa Mavedatnia, Gizelle Francis, Trung Le, Joel Davies, Vincent Lin, John J W Lee

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Salahaldin AlamlehTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0005-8549-5528
Dorsa MavedatniaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Gizelle FrancisFaculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID 0009-0006-3656-0669
Trung LeDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joel DaviesDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Vincent LinEvaluative Clinical Sciences Platform, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
John J W LeeDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ImportanceOnline patient education materials (PEMs) and large language model (LLM) outputs can provide critical health information for patients, yet their readability, quality, and reliability remain unclear for Meniere's disease.ObjectiveTo assess the readability, quality, and reliability of online PEMs and LLM-generated outputs on Meniere's disease.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingPEMs were identified from the first 40 Google Search results based on inclusion criteria. LLM outputs were extracted from unique interactions with ChatGPT and Google Gemini.ParticipantsThirty-one PEMs met inclusion criteria. LLM outputs were obtained from 3 unique interactions each with ChatGPT and Google Gemini.InterventionReadability was assessed using 5 validated formulas [Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index]. Quality and reliability were assessed by 2 independent raters using the DISCERN tool.Main Outcome MeasuresReadability was assessed for adherence to the American Medical Association's (AMA) sixth-grade reading level guideline. Source reliability, as well as the completeness, accuracy, and clarity of treatment-related information, was evaluated using the DISCERN tool.ResultsThe most common PEM source type was academic institutions (32.2%), while the majority of PEMs (61.3%) originated from the United States. The mean FRE score for PEMs corresponded to a 10th- to 12th-grade reading level, whereas ChatGPT and Google Gemini outputs were classified at post-graduate and college reading levels, respectively. Only 16.1% of PEMs met the AMA's sixth-grade readability recommendation using the FKGL readability index, and no LLM outputs achieved this standard. Overall DISCERN scores categorized PEMs and ChatGPT outputs as "poor quality," while Google Gemini outputs were rated "fair quality." No significant differences were found in readability or DISCERN scores across PEM source types. Additionally, no significant correlation was identified between PEM readability, quality, and reliability scores.ConclusionsOnline PEMs and LLM-generated outputs on Meniere's disease do not meet AMA readability standards and are generally of poor quality and reliability.RelevanceFuture PEMs should prioritize improved readability while maintaining high-quality, reliable information to better support patient decision-making for patients with Meniere's disease.

Indexed as

Internet-Based InterventionLarge Language ModelsMeniere DiseasePatient Education as TopicComprehensionCross-Sectional StudiesGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHealth LiteracyHumansReproducibility of Resultsartificial intelligencemedical educationMeniere’s diseasequality of lifevertigo

Identifiers

PMID40776601
PMCPMC12334814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.